Generations of Loars

[Andrew B. Carlson]

There are a few Loar batches that I seem to hear/see more than others. Is it just production numbers? Thile has said he likes the Feb. 18 24's the best, and although JR has only one, and it's awesome, it's a Feb. 18 as well. Then there's the July 9 23 batch which have some unique features and of course ol Bill had one so those are popular for that reason. Then there's Dawg's Crusher which seems to be one of the only 22's I hear about.

Thile also mentioned in the CVG videos that he thinks Loars sounded better as more were made and experimented with. Wouldn't that mean that the Dec. 24 Loars would be the most advanced the models ever got? Or even the 1925 "unsigned" models?

Which batch was the biggest? Which was smallest? Are there batches of "lesser" Loars?

[Jeff Mando]

Interesting food for thought. I think the challenge would be getting a big enough sample in one place to compare, at this late date. I've seen pictures of a gathering with 10 or so Loars in one room on display. Not sure if 10 would be big enough for a definitive sample. Probably Carters or maybe a bluegrass festival would be the only places to find more than one at a time, but still only a handful "might" be available. Then again, the owners might be reluctant to submit to a comparison verdict, as nobody would want to own the "less good sounding Loar", would they?

[William Smith]

Its been said sound is in the ear of the beholder, different years have different voices yet some from the same batches sound different. Then throw the virzis in the mix, another ballgame:whistling:
Feb 18th 24's I believe is the largest batch followed by the March 31st 24's than the famed Monroe batch I may be wrong? I played some from the smallest batches and well to me they are all unique and sound fine yes some better than others but saying this Loar is better than that Loar is krazy to me anyway. Each has its own unique way of expresion, I'd be proud to own and play any of em!

[Willie Poole]

I am wondering if the date on the labels is the date the mandolin was finished or the date that Loar signed the labels, I have heard that he signed labels a bunch at a time and the mandolins sometimes sat for a while before ever getting a label...Sad that no one is still around to really say what went on back in those days...I know there are some relatives of some of the workers in that time period that post some things now and then but they are just going by what they were told just as we are here on the M.C....It does seem that we, myself included, worry about such things that we have no control over but it does get interesting to discuss...

On another note I have had people tell me that a certain mandolin was the best they have ever heard and then others say that the same mandolin just doesn`t have it, so each person would have to draw his own conclusion as to which batch of Loars sounded the best, and it would only be what he liked and won`t mean a thing to most other people...Opinions are like (you know what) and we all have one...

Willie

[goaty76]

Which batch was the biggest? Which was smallest? Are there batches of "lesser" Loars?

This should help. Though it is not totally complete.

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/signature_dates.html

Phil

[Andrew B. Carlson]

Thanks goaty. So there is some correlation between large batches and what we see and hear the most.

[Glassweb]

i've owned 9 Loars (from several dates) including an "unsigned" and have played at least 50 others. every date has some great and others less great. same old story even with the Loars... if its got it, its got it.

[Ken Waltham]

This is quite a complex question, and, there are no solid rules to apply, but, I will give my interpretation. First, sound is very subjective, so, my ears may not hear what you hear. Also, I will say, that as the years have passed, and I've had more exposure to the Loar thing, my mindset has changed from when I first started out. I no longer accept the "old conventional " thoughts on these instruments.
So... ( and these are sweeping generalizations )
The early Loars, say from 1922 to perhaps Feb 1923 tend to be beautiful to look at. In this time period they are more violin - centric, and mostly display gorgeous woods. The finest materials are going in them, I think, because they are a new and revolutionary instrument, and they want to market them. Lighter in colour, with large sunbursts, to my ear they tend to be a bit more treble sided, some may say nasal in timbre.
April, May, June 1923 are quite similar, slight darkening of colour, more Cremona looking, still quarter sawn, and a bit more the bluegrass style sound. Real nice F5's.
July, 1923. Big changes, darker, slab cut appears on backs, and of course, sub set of sidebound. Bill Monroe's batch, so, it carries all the characteristics that players of the day were looking for. Focused, articulate sound. My first Loar was one of these, it was quarter sawn, and had a marvelous sound. I felt it would eat most Loars.
Moving into early 1924, this is where you get the really big batches, after the July 9 batch.
This is also where my tastes have changed over the decades. I really like these, and, I wonder if Loar F5's did in fact, reach their stride, before economics hampered their construction numbers. Feb and March groupings are dark in colour, much darker, and are mostly, if not exclusively slab cut backs. ( I'd have to research the exclusive part..) The Virzi appears as a Standard installation in the Feb batch. I find these F5's are also darker in sound as well as colour. Some of the ones I've played do not sustain as much as other F5's, but, produce a percussive, woody, dark tone.
Next prominent batch is Dec, 1924. Very dark colour, slab cut, and I've loved every one. Some have Virzi, some don't. Oh yes, starting in early 1924, you get white plastic binding on the peghead only, still ivoroid on the body. Typical Gibson..:)
And, Andrew, I have never played an unsigned Loar that I did not think was marvelous! I have not played David Grisman's, but, I think most of the others, and wow. Some with Virzi, some without.

So, my changed perceptions over the years..
I used to think that Virzis' killed sound. I completely disagree with that now. The first number of Loars I owned, just due to random issues, were without. Then, later, I got into a run of Virzi F5's. Wonderful instruments, and, it's a crime that they were removed from some of them early on.
In a real general sense, I now tend to like the 1924's PERHAPS a little better. I used to feel a Loar wasn't really real unless it was a 1923.. but, now I lean a bit more to the later ones, in general terms.
Having said all that, I currently own a Feb 1923, wild quarter sawn wood, with Virzi. It seems to go against my generalizations of a typical Feb, as it seems very deep sounding, robust, and not a lot of sustain. Must be the Virzi, as they normally do not have them in those two Feb 1923 batches.
So, my two sweeping generalizations are.. up to July 1923, I think they are perhaps a little finer made, more care, etc, but, for my ear, I think by 1924 and even 1925 unsigned, they hit their stride in sound.
Your mileage may ( and will) vary greatly.

[Andrew B. Carlson]

Thanks Ken! It's great to have first hand information. Interesting that you've also "Settled" on preferring the later models. I think CT described them as more elegant rather than the "in your face" Monroe sound.

[Ken Waltham]

Thanks Ken! It's great to have first hand information. Interesting that you've also "Settled" on preferring the later models. I think CT described them as more elegant rather than the "in your face" Monroe sound.

Again, in general terms, I'd say that is true. Depends on your playing style, but, sometimes in your face is just what you're looking for. Maybe less so today, with microphones, etc... but important in Bill's day.

[Timbofood]

And just what is wrong with "In your Face"?

[FLATROCK HILL]

Again, in general terms, I'd say that is true. Depends on your playing style, but, sometimes in your face is just what you're looking for. Maybe less so today, with microphones, etc... but important in Bill's day.

That is a very interesting observation. For me, it calls attention to the fact that like mandolins, some human voices are considered more elegant or refined than others. I'd say that WSM's voice tended more toward the in-your-face quality, than the more refined, crooner-style voices of say...Eddy Arnold or Jim Reeves. Turn 'em all loose in a field with no electrical amplification and there's only one of them you'll hear.
Okay, I know...somewhat off-topic. Carry on.


And just what is wrong with "In your Face"?

Nothing!

[Benjamin T]

http://www.mandolincentral.com/lloyd-loar-cd/ Did you check out Tony Williamson's sensitive recording? What a super interesting project and really trying to listen to the differences in the instruments is pleasure. Probably, the most comprehensive comparison and contrast on "record" to date...

[f5loar]

Most of those in your face Loars are the result of a powerful right hand. Monroe had a really powerful right hand. Thile not so much. the April 25, 1923 batch had some really stout ones. Dave Apollon choose that date for his one and only Loar.

[Timbofood]

Interesting point Tom, I would think that the right hand "power" was as much a part of the available sound reenforcement of the day as anything else. Had Dave Appolon or Bill Monroe had the equipment available now "Back then" the power and tonal color of the instruments very well "could" have been a little different?

[Ken Waltham]

Most of those in your face Loars are the result of a powerful right hand. Monroe had a really powerful right hand. Thile not so much. the April 25, 1923 batch had some really stout ones. Dave Apollon choose that date for his one and only Loar.

I certainly could not disagree with that statement. I thiink there's a lot of truth there.